Cold Facts

One in four Scottish households are living in fuel poverty, according to a new report. 

647,000 households were fuel poor in 2012, which means energy costs more than ten per cent of their income.  170,000 households were living in extreme fuel poverty in 2012, with energy costing more than 20% of their income.

Why a political party?

What is a political party?  Most people would answer this question with something like “A bunch of windbags trying to steal as much of our tax money as they can get away with.” . But if we really want to understand the question, we have to go a little deeper – we have to ask ourselves, “Who do these parties represent?”

According to official mythology, we live in a “democracy” because we get to choose who are going to run the government; but what this really boils down to is that we get to choose which section of the ruling class is going to run the government and exploit the working people.

The Labour Party is more “liberal” – they believe in throwing the working class a few crumbs every now and then to keep them quiet; the Conservative Party is as their name implies more conservative – they’d rather use the stick than the carrot. But both parties represent the interests of the “super-rich,” the small group of people that own and control most of the wealth the working people produce in their factories etc. – and they own and control the Labour and Tory parties, too. A small group of THE immensely wealthy convince the vast majority of the population – who all work their lives away making them rich – that they have the right to decide how the country will be run when in reality the only right they have is to continue to be exploited. Socialists call this system “bourgeois democracy” (bourgeois meaning capitalist) because it’s democracy for the capitalist ruling class, but dictatorship for the working class – under our “two party” system, the working class is left out of politics altogether.

So the answer to our question “What is a political party?” is that a political party is the representative of an economic class in the political arena. The Conservatives and Labour parties both represent the capitalist economic class, and are the main tool by which that class maintains its domination and exploitation of the vast majority of the people. They’re structured entirely around winning elections, or in other words, doing a better job at fooling the people than the other party. The masses of people have no say whatsoever in the policies of either party.  The trade unions may be affiliated to the Labour Party, but this is a mere formality and it certinly doesn’t make the Labour Party a true party of labour.

Socialists think the working class can and must have its own political party, a party that will serve its own interests, not those of the exploiting class. Basing themselves on the Marxist theory of society, socialists understand that politics is essentially a war between the two main classes in modern capitalist society: those that work (the working class or proletariat) and those that exploit those who work (the capitalist class or bourgeoisie). Just as the bourgeois parties strive to defend and maintain capitalism and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a working class party would strive for socialism where the fruits of our labour, the immense social wealth we create each and every day, will be shared equally through a planned economy based on the needs of people rather than profit. We will have a society where the majority of ordinary people govern themselves rather than serve a small ruling class sitting pretty on top of the rest of society; in other words, we will have a society where democracy is a reality for the many and not a privilege of the few.

Secretary of the London Working Men’s Associalition  William Lovett describes the task of a socialist party admirably:-
 “We had seen enough of the contentions of leaders and the battles of factions; to convince us, that no sound Public Opinion, and consequently no just Government, could be formed in this country as long as men's attention was constantly directed to the useless warfare of pulling down, and setting up, of one Idol of Party after another ....
The masses, in their political organisations, were taught to look up to "Great Men" (or to men professing "greatness") rather than to great Principles. We wished therefore to establish a political school of self-instruction among them, in which they should accustom themselves to examine great social and political principles, and by their publicity and free discussion, help to form a sound and healthful public opinion throughout the country .....
We have not wished, neither do we desire to be, Leaders, as we believe that the principles we advocate have been retarded, injured or betrayed by Leadership, more than by the open hostility of opponents. Leadership too often generates confiding bigotry, or political indifference on the one hand, or selfish ambition, on the other.
The principles WE advocate are those of the peoples' happiness, and for these to be justly established, each man must Know and feel his Rights and Duties. He must be prepared to guard the one; and perform the other with cheerfulness. And if Nature has given to one Man superior faculties, to express or execute the general wish, he only performs his Duty at the Mandate of his bretheren; he is therefore the "Leader" of none, but the equal of ALL ....”

The class struggles we are forced to wage each and every day just to survive can only lead to trying to cure a cancer with a band-aid. This is because these “spontaneous”, everyday struggles only attack part of the problem (a particular corporation, a particular employer, etc.), not the problem itself – which is the capitalist system. Short-term policies will not change economic and political inequality, and repeating the strategies of the past will not bring hope to a society worn down by powerlessness and dependency. The past is mother to the present, but the future is limited only by what we can imagine. An alternative future demands new ideas and the courage to make deep changes. Let the workers remember that in every country there the same struggle is going on between the workers on the one hand, and the exploiters  on the other hand. Workers have learned  by bitter experience that industries nationalised by the State, are no cure for wage-slavery, because they are still carried on for profit; and nothing but the SOCIALISATION OF THE MEANS OF LIFE under a free Co-operative Commonwealth will abolish the present system, and give the wealth of the world to the workers of the world.

Polluted Power

Longannet in Kincardine, run by ScottishPower, was highlighted by international group the Health and Environment Alliance (Heal) as one of Europe's top polluters, according to environmentalists who claim the plant's emissions affect the health of people for hundreds of miles around by belching out thousands of tons of pollutants which travel in the atmosphere.

WWF Scotland said the report showed key health reasons for power providers to move away from coal. WWF Scotland director Lang Banks said the findings were significant. He said: "This study shows there are important health reasons why we need to be ending our reliance on coal especially. It's clear that action is needed today to cut emissions from all existing coal power stations, including Longannet."

The report claimed fumes from coal-fired power stations cause 1600 premature deaths in the UK each year and that the emissions are linked to 18,000 premature deaths in the EU each year. Heal said: "A growing body of evidence shows how early-life exposure to air pollutants is contributing to higher risks of developing chronic diseases later in life, including obesity, diabetes, and hormone related cancers."

29.8 million slaves (excluding wage slaves)

A recent survey said there are now 29.8 million slaves (excluding wage slaves) in the world today. Mauritania was the last country to abolish slavery in 1981. Today there are 140,000 slaves in Mauritania, the most enslaved country in the world. There are now 57,000 slaves in the US and 5,600 in Canada. So socialism will mean more than the abolition of capitalism. John Ayers.

Food for thought

Recently, former real estate mogul, Paul Reichmann passed away. When his company took over the Canary Wharf project in London in 1987, Reichmann believed England was on its way to a new era of prosperity under Margaret Thatcher. Contrary to his expectation, Britain slumped and so did its real estate market. So, if a guy who obviously knew his business could be so disastrously wrong, how can anyone predict how a market will perform. Forget the casino economics and opt for socialism. John Ayers.

Who Owns the North Pole - Part 68

Canadian officials confirmed Monday that the nation is preparing to include the North Pole as part of its Arctic Ocean seabed claim in the multi-country push to prove jurisdiction over further territory in the resource-rich area.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Arctic Council chair Leona Aglukkaq officially announced Monday Canada’s claim to the extended continental shelf in the Arctic. It was reported by The Globe and Mail last week that Prime Minister Stephen Harper requested a government board charged with assessing Canada’s claims beyond its territorial waterways, per United Nations rules, to seek a more expansive stake of Arctic area to include the North Pole.

"We have asked our officials and scientists to do additional work and necessary work to ensure that a submission for the full extent of the continental shelf in the Arctic includes Canada's claim to the North Pole," Baird said during a press conference at the House of Commons.

The North Pole is 817 kilometers north of Canada’s - and the world’s - northernmost settlement, Alert, Nunavut. The town is home to a Canadian Forces station and Environment Canada station.

"Fundamentally, we are drawing the last lines of Canada. We are defending our sovereignty," Aglukkaq said, according to CBC News.

Canada has spent nearly US$200 million on the scientific-discovery process of the area, including dozens of icebreaker and helicopter trips for teams of scientists. An unmanned submarine was used to collect data below the frigid Arctic water.  About 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie in the largely untapped 18-million-square-mile Arctic region, according to the US Geological Survey, making up about 10 percent of the world's petroleum resources. The dominant portion of these resources are hidden beneath the ice that is shared between five nations bordering the Arctic: Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation and the US.

Both Russia and Canada say the resource-abundant Lomonosov Ridge, below the ocean and close to the geographic North Pole, is a natural extension of their continental shelves.
“As for the Arctic, there are not only large economic interests for the country – a huge amount of mineral resources, oil and gas,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week, underlining his nation’s interests in the region. “But there lies a very important part of our defense capabilities.”

Observations on Fascism

Definitions matter because imprecision leads to carelessness when clarity is necessary. The term “fascism” has been bandied about by all and sundry, to the point of risking losing its sting, its cutting edge, and becoming instead the catch-all for every social movements or the  political antics of individuals. , allowing the more dangerous causal factors, e.g., capitalism, militarism, etc., to remain in shadow  therefore neglected. Fascism comes in many forms; one size does not fit all, tempting as such an analysis might be. Nor is there an historical line drawn in the sand, the crossing of which acts to confirm the genuine article. This is merely to warn against the construction of simplistic models.  Indeed, models are a waste of energy; history is a better guide for us.

Fascism’s many guises—Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, Hitler’s Germany; all are relevant, and perhaps even constituting a unified sequential historical phase. But that isn’t good enough, at least to account for the historical forces post-1945, although certainly beginning earlier, which define fascism in modern times. The concentration camp is no longer a sure-fire indicator, not when techniques of surveillance are being perfected and mass manipulation, particularly via consumerism and political propaganda from all quarters, has taken its place in softening the body politic and inducing conformity and complacence. Today fascism speaks with a mellow voice  and dons softened gloves, the better to achieve the regimentation of thought and opinion heretofore reliant on force. Force is externalized, propelled forward to maintain hegemonic aspirations and, on the side, enlist the populace at home into the display of fervent patriotic support, without which the total formation might stagnate, fall backward, or actually crumble.  Fascism represents sustainment of the existing structure of wealth and power whilst the political economy itself bounds ahead—that is, the conservation of the Old Order under the conditions of modern industrialism.

From Here

Some Rough Notes on Tax

The bosses have tried every imaginable remedy for the crisis. To no avail. Now they hope to find a lever to raise their profits by lowering taxes. The campaign to lower taxes has swept the bourgeois world like wildfire. Through every avenue at their command the capitalists and the landlords are clamoring for economy in government. They want “cheap government” and the support of the working class to force a curtailment of expenses. We workers are robbed as producers, robbed of the surplus labor, of the surplus value which the capitalist divide among themselves as profits, rent, interest and to pay their office boys’ (government) and for the gangster racketeers who rob the robbers.

The government (the state) operates for the benefit of the capitalists, owners of the basic means of production and circulation of all commodities and wealth. Government functions through an army of administrators and officials who must be supported. Taxation is the general method by which capitalists collect State revenues to keep the State going. Under the modern development of capitalism, however, the State has been impelled to undertake large economic tasks which private capitalists may not be able to do, such as the welfare  provisions for the young and old,  the sick and the infirm, and those unable to work, as well as construction of transport infrastructure and communications networks, research and development projects, and, of course, defence which all  call for large expenditures to be met by taxation. The government is often placed under huge debts by the capitalists so that heavy interest rates have to be paid through taxation. Taxes can assume many forms and without taxes the State could not maintain itself. Modern capitalism has also requires adequate housing, sanitation, health, and educational facilities. For this the State must impose and collect tax.

But on whom can the tax be levied? It is clear that taxes can be paid only by those who have the wherewithal to pay them. Taxes, on the whole, must be paid by the propertied classes, by the big and the small bourgeoisie who are divided into many sub-sections each one trying to throw the weight of taxation onto the others. Hence a bitter fight arises over which sections of the capitalist class shall have the dominant voice in the taxation process. A myriad of ways are found to minimize the effects or to avoid taxation by the various groups, including: tricks of omissions evasion and avoidance, exceptions, exemptions, rebates, preferences, tariff arrangements, subsidies, etc.. One thing capitalism cannot do is kill the goose that lays the golden egg; it must not destroy by taxation the overall production or productive development of the country. Since capitalism is the structure of a country’s economic strength and power, the State must not hamper too greatly that growth by taxation.

As part of the cost of business the capitalists have to pay wages. Generally the worker receives in return for the sale of his labor power to his employer wages that will buy necessities enough to: (a) replenish that labor power, (b) allow the worker to keep in reasonably good health, (c) allow the worker to go to and from work and to seek work freely, (d) allow the worker to maintain an average family to reproduce children who will survive to become the wage-slaves in the future, including the maintenance of a wife and aged parents, (e) permit the family to survive in bad time of depression and of unemployment, as well as in good times of prosperity, since both aspects are inevitable processes under capitalism.

Wages paid the workers have to be large enough to be sufficient to cover periods of unemployment and to provide for old age.  In the past often this level of wages had not been paid and long periods of unemployment have found a destitute and rebellious working class increasingly difficult to control, especially as these workers became class-conscious. Hence arises the need for establishing a compulsory unemployment saving fund that will at least partially guarantee that the wages paid will cover periods of unemployment as well.

The level and items of expenditure needed to pay for the consumption for the replenishment of lost labor power naturally can and does vary regionally and nationally and according to individual and family needs. Each people or group maintains an historic standard of living often differing markedly since a worker may replenish his labor power by consuming meat, fish, wheat, milk, beer, and vegetables, etc., or by consuming beans, bananas, and water. Within certain limits the workers’ living standards can be driven lower and lower and yet suffice to replenish the lost labor power expended in the production process. The worker must be eternally vigilant to defend his historic standards.

 Corporate profits can either be distributed as dividends, bonuses, and other payments, or may be ploughed back into the business either first accumulated as a hoard, or spent directly on re-investment. We should not let the production capitalists shift their costs on to the general public.  Workers must continue to ensure the burden of taxation falls onto the wealthy classes and does not adversely affecting the workers’ cost of living.

Wages paid workers theoretically have to cover periods of no work funds have now also been established as a permanent compulsory savings fund for old age, disability. This fund, for the most part, again is collected by business companies as part of the cost of doing business, although here not only the employer but the employee is taxed as well. The employee is never trusted to pay the bulk of the tax; the employer does it for the worker as agent of the State.

But how can the worker be taxed if his pay covers only the bare minimum for his immediate expenses? The obvious answer is that the tax can be levied and collected because the worker has already received as wages a sum sufficient to cover this tax. What the employer has given with one hand he has been very careful to take immediately back again with the other hand as agent of the State. But why all this indirection? Would it not be simpler and better were the tax levied directly on the employer and no wages increased? Let us look at the reasons  behind this indirect procedure.

In the first place, in most cases the relation between pay increases and taxation is not a simple mechanical one. The State does not decide to tax workers and then order their agents, the employers, to increase wages so as to enable the workers to pay these taxes. In most cases the workers have been able to force the wage increases first, due to favorable circumstances and struggle. It is possible for workers to increase their real wages because the economy of their country is strong and prosperous and stands in a monopolistic or imperialistic position in the world earning super-profits for employers. It is possible for workers to have strong and militant unions to threaten the employers with dire action unless wage increases are forthcoming. Employers may be attacked individually, not collectively, and in some cases may be too weak to stand the struggle of a powerful working force leveled against them. Now with such real pay increases the workers are able to pay the tax especially needed as a compulsory national insurance savings fund for old age security. At the same time their income is reduced and the power of the employer, especially as agent of the State, is reinforced.

Secondly, by first increasing the nominal pay to the worker and then taxing that increase away the State and capitalism give certain illusions to the worker: that he is the recipient of real wage raises and to some degree a property owner, and that as property owner he is like all other property owners paying taxes to a State that acts in his behalf. The State now is partly his State and he must eschew all thoughts that the State is his deadly enemy controlled only by enemy classes. He can be induced to take part in the large number of taxation struggles and make them a decisive part of his political activity, rather than concentrating on the employer.

Taxes levied directly on business would be considered part of overhead expenses and reduce net profits accordingly, other things being equal. Taxation on the payroll however, forcing an increase in the payroll to meet the charge of taxes, causes an increase in the cost of production upon which the average rate of profits is to be calculated, other things being equal. Such a tax thus may increase prices and profits. Taxation thus has a great influence on the price and profit structures. It must be said that the workers have not opposed these “transfer” taxes, in fact they demand a greater unemployment compensation tax on employers so that they can receive full pay for the entire period of their unemployment. It is different with taxes levied for social security and medicare. Here the working class wants the whole tax paid by the employers. Also the working class violently objects to the mass of fraud and corruption, the inefficiency and waste by which the tax funds are dissipated, with cheating employers and professionals ripping off billions of dollars annually and workers deprived of the adequate care they need and expect.

Some taxes are hidden in prices. Excise duty on fuel, alcohol and tobacco, for instance. Then there is VAT (or purchase tax or sales tax) on particular goods.  This is the principle tax on consumers,  levied through retailers on the consumer when sales are made. Here it is the merchant who is the agent of the State, who collects the tax and must turn it over to the authorities. If such a tax is on luxury, the working class is little concerned  If the tax is on necessities which raise the cost of living, it is a blow at the sufficiency of the wage structure and the historic standard of living. This might bring protests on whose backs the regressive tax falls most heavily. The workers try to shift the burden of the sales tax on to the employer by securing compensation cost of living wage increases; but generally the cost of living rises first and the wage levels rise belatedly after. If the workers have developed a pay scale already higher than adequate to meet the costs of replenishing their labour power, then the sales tax is an act by the State to strip the workers down to that minimum level which the employers by themselves were not able to do. Again the State comes in to help the employer while a good part of the sales taxes goes for purposes to favour employers objectives.

 Consumer taxes abound and large sections of the unemployed or poor cannot shift these consumer taxes on to the employer. They can only demand a belated relief by increases the in unemployment, sickness or pension benefits which can be won only with the help of the working class also adversely affected.

Food for thought

An Socialist Party od Canada member's wife works at the Food Bank. To quote, " One lady came in, she was wearing very good clothes, very nice make-up and was very attractive, professional looking. After I had finished helping her with choosing food, she started to cry. She was embarrassed about having to go to a Food Bank. Possibly she had lost her job, probably a good one, and had to resort to this." Not only does capitalism create insecurity, but it can be damn humiliating. John Ayers

Independence without independence!

Aince there was a king, wha sat 
Scrievin’ this edict in his palace haa’ 
Til all his folk: ‘Vassals, I tell ye flat 
That I am I, and ye are bugger-aa’.
Robert Garioch, 

Common Weal is an old term meaning "shared wealth," but in todays political parliance it means policies aimed  to abolish poverty in Scotland through higher pay, higher taxes, and a beefed-up welfare state based on the policies of Scandanavian countries, particularly promoted by  Radical Independence Campaign (RIC), a loose coalition of Scottish left-wingers, environmentalists,  militant trade unionists, republicans, and veterans of the anti-nuclear and anti-war movements.

 The RIC’s basic  belief is that the Scottish worker is more radical than his English counter-part. But being anti-Tory doesn’t necessary correspond to being more socialist.  Yet many of workers’ struggles in Scotland and England have been linked together and the victory of each often depends on the other.  The Scottish, Welsh and English working class have not developed separately but, because of capitalism, have developed as part of one united working class. Independence may rupture the united British working class movement at trade union level. Scottish independence would disrupt the unity of the working class fueling the myths of national brotherhood between exploiters and exploited.  In reality, a socialist transformation of Scotland could only take place in a British ( European and world) context. Mass movements would take place also in Wolverhampton and Walsall, as well as in Glasgow and Greenock. A socialist transformation would be on a world scale. There is no Scottish road to socialism. For there can be no socialist Scotland, socialism is global or it is not socialism. The Scottish working class is exploited in the same way as the English working class: by the English, Scottish and international capitalist class. The bosses organises internationally and they want to ensure our class doesn’t do the same.

The SNP are a capitalist party, orientated towards the EU, who have tactically positioned themselves to the left of Labour as defending the interests of Scotland against the Tories, with high profile signature policies such as free prescriptions and care for the elderly. The largest force outside Labour and the SNP is the Scottish Green Party, which is explicitly anti-cuts and anti-NATO, with two MSPs and 4.4 per cent of the vote in 2011. The combined vote of SLP, SSP, and Solidarity in 2011 was 1.62 per cent. These left  nationalists offer a fake veneer in an effort to sell a capitalist and nationalist agenda as some ill-defined step towards a Scottish “socialist republic”. With the domination of capital in Scotland as throughout the world, such a solution would not offer true autonomy. The independence put forward by the SNP is one which includes the Queen as head of state, retaining the pound sterling, British military bases to remain as well as continued membership of NATO and the continuance of the BBC as the mouthpiece o the ruling class.

Independence would offer no way out under capitalism and would only serve to foster divisions in the working class.  On the basis of continued capitalism in Scotland and the rest of Britain, Scottish and English workers would be placed in direct competition. This is especially true if we consider SNP plans for a more “business friendly” environment, with lower corporation tax and other incentives, in an attempt to encourage businesses to relocate from England to Scotland. The whole approach would be to drive down costs, i.e., wage to become more competitive. They would encourage a race to the bottom and pit worker against worker. Such competition between Scottish and UK businesses would result in a driving down of wages on both sides of the border. Such competition between Scottish and UK businesses would result in a driving down of wages on both sides of the border. A loss of jobs or fall in wages would also be used by the British ruling class to stoke up resentment south of the border, and vice versa.  England would dominate the Scottish economy. The ownership of Scotland’s economy, including its banks and trade, will still  be controlled from the City of London. Scotland would still be at the whims of international capital.

A recent study by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions (CPPR), a Glasgow University-based think tank, has underscored that the biggest cuts in day-to-day spending on public services will come in 2016-17 and 2017-18. Only half of the intended austerity measures have been implemented in Scotland, and most of these have been made at the expense of capital spending. Writing in the Scotsman, CPPR economist John McLaren dismissed the claim that Scotland would be insulated from spending cuts by independence. This “ignores the reality that, in practice, similar fiscal circumstances are almost bound to exist for an independent Scotland, and so greater clarity would also be needed in terms of a medium-term to long-term budgeting strategy, with or without any oil fund.”

The task before workers in Scotland and the UK is to join in struggle against their common enemy, whether they wave the Union flag or the Saltire. The overriding goal is not to build new, smaller states but to end the nation state system through social revolution. We stand for the overthrow of capitalism and a  precondition for this is the unity of the working class in this common struggle for socialism.  Nationalism is on the rise in Europe with the strengthening of  Fortress Europe as well as a rise in the far right within member states.

 All nationalisms are based upon sweet seductive fairy tales about the great destiny of this that or the other people, their historic unity and the beautiful landscapes that surround them.  We want unity and friendship – but with all the peoples of the world. We are stirred by our history and natural beauty – but by the history of our class and natural beauty of all countries, not just our own. We have to resist the ideology of nationalism. Every effort is put forth by the exploiting capitalist to prevent workers from seeing the class struggle. The Scottish bosses insists that there is no such struggle, just the national interest. The hired editors in the employ of the capitalist echoes “no class struggle.” The academics dependent upon the capitalist for the chance to make a living, agree that there are no classes and no class struggle. In unison they declaim against class agitation and seek to obscure class rule that it may be perperuated indefinitely. We insist that there is a class struggle; that the working class must recognise it; that they must organise economically and politically upon the basis of that struggle; and that when they do so organise they will then have the power to free themselves and put an end to that struggle forever.

Who owns the North Pole - Part 67

While many existing oil and gas reserves in other parts of the world are facing steep decline, the Arctic is thought to possess vast untapped reservoirs. Approximately 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil deposits and 30 percent of its natural gas reserves are above the Arctic Circle, according to the United States Geological Survey. Eager to tap into this largess, Russia and its Arctic neighbors — Canada, Norway, the United States, Iceland and Denmark (by virtue of its authority over Greenland) — have encouraged energy companies to drill in the region.

 Arctic drilling poses an unacceptable threat to the region. Any major spill that occurs there is likely to prove far more destructive than the one produced in the Gulf of Mexico by the Deepwater Horizon disaster in April 2010, because of both the lack of adequate response capabilities and the likelihood that ice floes and sea ice will impede cleanup operations. As more companies push into the Arctic and accelerate their operations there, the risk of accidents and spills is bound to increase.

The risk of conflict over the ownership of contested territories is likely to grow. Five of the Arctic states have asserted exclusive drilling rights to boundary areas also claimed by one of the others, and control over the polar region itself remains contentious. In an area with the “potential for tapping what may be as much as a quarter of the planet’s undiscovered oil and gas,” Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel warned recently, “a flood of interest in energy exploration has the potential to heighten tensions over other issues.”

Most of the Arctic states have asserted their right to defend their offshore territories with force and have taken steps to enhance their ability to fight in these areas. Russia, for example, recently announced plans to establish what it calls a “cutting-edge military infrastructure” in the Arctic.

Another  big danger in Arctic drilling is posed by the release of mass amounts of Methane gas trapped under the permafrost. Enough gas will be released into the atmosphere to kill all life on the planet.

None of this, however, is likely to deter other interested countries. With the demand for oil at an all-time high and existing fields incapable of satisfying global needs, the major energy firms are bound to pursue every conceivable source of supply.

No extra measure of oil and natural gas is worth the destruction of pristine wilderness or the onset of an Arctic arms race but capitalism will not stop its expansion.  What do they care about wildnerness? All they see is money and power, power and money. The capitalist’s greed  always trumps common sense. Rushing for profits and greater ownership is what world capital interests seek above all else.

From here 

The Fair Wage - A Mythic Dream

All the wage increases over the past 15 years have gone to the wealthiest 10%, according to the Economic Policy Institute. All of them. And almost all, 95%, of the income gains from 2009 to 2012, the first three years of recovery from the Great Recession, went to the very richest 1%.

The minimum wage has not risen since 2009 -. If the minimum wage had just kept pace with inflation since 1968, it would be $10.77 an hour today instead of $7.25. If the minimum wage had kept up with the growth of workers' productivity, it would be $18.67. And if it had matched the wage growth of the wealthiest 1%, it would be more than $28. For tipped workers, the minimum wage rate has been stuck at a scandalous $2.13 for 20 years. A raise in the minimum wage would give 30 million workers a little more money to pay for rent, food and other needs.

The median household income in the USA is about $50,000. The average household size is about 2.59 people. $50,000/2.59 is about $19,300. Assume a 2000 hour work year. Then you have $19,300/2000 hours equals $9.65 per hour. Based on these simple and fact-based calculations above, the bare minimum living wage is $9.65 per hour if you work full-time. Face the facts my friends. Even if you work full time at $9.65 per hour, you are still pretty poor.

The share of workers in "good” jobs -- paying more than $37,000 a year and providing health care and retirement benefits -- has fallen, even though workers' average age and education level have grown. And today, most job growth -- and six in 10 jobs expected to be added over the next decade -- are in low-wage fields.

Under no circumstances can a wage be fair. It is a common delusion that wages are a payment for work done. If they were this, then to the worker would go the full market price of his product. To the miner would go the full selling price of the coal less only the cost of maintaining the railwaymen, transport workers and others incidental to the transfer of coal from pit to power station . To the engineer would go the price of his product—to the agricultural labourer his. To the worker would go the whole produce of his toil, and there would be none left for profits or dividends. It is clear, then, that the wage of the worker is a part, and only a part, of his own product. Any “wage” bring only a part, is an injustice—an unfairness—to those whose labour has begotten the whole. Anything fair to the worker as producer would be unfair to the “employer . From the nature of the relation, employer and employee, there can be no such thing as “fairness” about the reward of the latter.

It is often suggested nowadays that the wage should be governed by the “cost of living” - the living wage.  One has only to ask the meaning of “living” in this connection to expose its fallacy. If  worker accepts this as a principle, they lay themselves open to all the old attacks upon their lifestyle -  extravagance, wastefulness, drunkenness.

The Citizens Wage 

Those who are not into radical politics, the basic income is an income granted unconditionally to all citizens (or inhabitants) - Citizens income or universal benefit,

Promotion of the concept of social wage invariably means arguing against fighting for pay rises, and is based on the assumption that class struggle is a bad thing; better to use the democratic process to elect social democrats to government and legislate improvements in the social wage.

“Social wage” fell out of use in the latter part of the 20th century, as social democratic parties around the world were engaged in running down health services and pensions while unions were bargaining for employer contributions to health insurance and superannuation funds.

“If workers do not only want to survive, but also want a car or a holiday abroad, it will become difficult to put pressure on employers. It is clear that trade unions will lose much of their power. The freedom not to work is very relative and is only valid when one is satisfied with a life in relative poverty. Chances are real that wages above the BI will remain very limited. An unconditional income outside of the labour market cannot influence that labour market. Contrary to the thesis that capitalism is being eroded, it is possible that one ends up with a capitalism without a labour market and that employers pass on as many costs as possible to the whole of society. It makes labour more cheap, without allowing to eradicate poverty.” said one critic

A "Citizen's Income", is defined as: "a monetary payment distributed at regular intervals to all those who enjoy citizenship and residency for a certain period of time, which allows a minimum dignity of life . . . It is paid to those of working age, for the period that goes from the end of obligatory schooling to pension age or death."

Negri supports this as he sees the demand for it as "a refusal of work and of the wage relationship". If introduced other than as some tinkering with the tax and benefits system it would indeed undermine the economic compulsion to go out and work for an employer; which of course (apart from its cost) is why it is never going to happen under capitalism. In any event, as a goal, it is a poor substitute for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

His answer is, perhaps surprisingly from someone who was associated with Militant for a while, “yes”, in the form of the scheme proposed by the Belgian social thinker, Philippe Van Parijs, for paying everyone a Basic Income as of right and irrespective of whether or not they work, referring to an article by him in a book with the revealing title of Redesigning Distribution: Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Designs for a More Egalitarian Capitalism. Or, as Van Parijs himself has put it:

“In classical Marxism, socialism is just an instrument for achieving the society in which people can work freely according to their abilities but still get enough according to their needs. If socialism doesn’t work, because of threats to freedom and problems of dynamic efficiency, then why not harness capitalism to achieve the same objectives?” (The Bulletin, Brussels, 19 July 2001).

It’s a pipedream of course and a bit currency cranky (though to give Van Parijs his due, he did come up with a brilliant title for one of his books in What’s Wrong with a Free Lunch?). A Basic Income paid as of right would have to be funded (even squeezed) out of profits and would either undermine the wages system (why work for a capitalist employer if the State is paying you whether you work or not?) or make no difference (since wages would fall by the amount of the State wage subsidy that a Basic Income would represent). Or it would be fixed at so low a level as to be just another name for “Income Support”.

land backed interest free currency –spent into the economy to create infrastructure, rental income to fund citizens income and public services.’

In other words, the government would get money by taxing away the rental income, real or notional, of landowners (which these days includes not just the Duke of Westminster but those who own the leasehold or freehold of their homes) and using this to pay everybody a basic income as well as to finance its own expenditure. It is not clear that this is actually an ‘alternative currency’ since the existence of rental incomes to be taxed away assumes that there already is a currency. What they seem to mean is ‘land based interest free government financing,’ which would allow the government to dispense with borrowing money.

Let it never be forgotten that a  basic income guarantee is always perfectly compatible with alienation and oppression.

Fact of the Day

While the brewers and distillers pocket the profits,  alcohol is killing the equivalent of 20 people a week and 700 hospital admissions per week in Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25283838

POVERTY STRICKEN MILLIONS

'More working households were living in poverty in the UK last year than non-working ones - for the first time, a charity has reported. Just over half of the 13 million people in poverty - surviving on less than 60% of the national median (middle) income - were from working families, it said. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said low pay and part-time work had prompted an unprecedented fall in living standards.' (BBC News, 8 December) These figures  underestimate the extent of the problem as the JRF's annual Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion report was written by the New Policy Institute and tracks a range of indicators, including government data and surveys covering income, education and social security, and has a very frugal concept of what poverty is. In the 2011-12 period, the amount of earnings before a household was said to be in poverty was £128 a week for a single adult; £172 for a single parent with one child; £220 for a couple with no children, and £357 for a couple with two children. How many of the "we are all in this together" MPs could survive on £128 a week? RD

An alien world

Imagine a being from Outer Space visiting Earth. The alien would observe our scientific, technological and medical achievements, but would then notice the plight of billions with no access to these accomplishments. Then s/he/it would notice a small minority of Earthlings who are not only indifferent to this suffering but directly benefit from it.

The number of wealthy individuals in the world has reached 10.9 million - more than existed before the 2008 banking crises. Their collective wealth, $42.7 trillion, has also topped the levels it reached in 2007, before the crash and recession. This elite group represents 0.15% of a world population of over 7 billion. The super-rich were hiding at least $21 trillion in tax havens at the end of 2010. This is an underestimate and could well be as high as $32 trillion.  Oxfam estimates that  $7.18 trillion - is sitting in accounts in British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.

The above wealth exists in a world where 870 million people were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012, 16 million of whom were in the developed world.   Poor nutrition plays a role in at least 5 million deaths of children each year. Additionally, more than 3.4 million people die each year from water, sanitation, and hygiene-related causes.

The alien being would also notice all the resources used to patch up this broken system. The social work profession is in charge of administering the minimal resources provided by the state to smooth over the sharpest edges of  capitalism. Profit maximisation is the fundamental principle of capitalism. Social work operates within the dictates of a ruling class who sees the protection and expansion of profit, and thus the exploitation of humanity, as the primary objective.

Capitalist development forges a working class out of conditions of suffering and deprivation. Homelessness, poverty, mental illness, hunger, and other social ills are inevitable machinations of the capitalist system. Social workers are hired by the state and/or ‘non-profit’ private enterprises to stabilise capitalist exploitation. Capital employs social workers to provide mental health, addiction counseling, and case management services. These services address the social ills of capitalism without challenging the profit motive or the entrenched principle of private property that creates inequality in the first place. Social workers work toward the “stabilisation”  rather then the “liberation” of masses of people from the exploitation of man by man. Social workers manage exploitation rather then challenge it. The social work values of self-determination, empowerment, and dignity are empty rhetoric in the midst of a capitalist political economy that plunders the world at the enrichment of the few.

The great economic power of the world is the product of the labour of countless people in this land and around the globe. But while the working people created this wealth, they do not own or control it. The capitalist system has concentrated the ownership of the tremendous productive forces in the hands of a small group of big capitalists. Workers are wage slaves who survive only by selling their labour power to the capitalists. Capitalists own the means of production and pay workers for their labour power. But the working class produces far more wealth than it receives in income. The difference is the source of capitalist profits. The worker is employed only as long as he or she helps create profit. When the capitalist has problems maximizing his profits, he does not hesitate to throw workers out into the street. The capitalist system exploits the working class and creates the poverty and economic insecurity of society as a whole.

The capitalist system is a system of economic anarchy and crisis. Capitalism is plagued by periodic economic crises, such as recessions, which are becoming more serious and complex. These crises are built into the economic system. Each capitalist enterprise tries to profit in the short run, but because of this competition the economy is thrown into turmoil.

The system of capitalism wastes a great amount of social wealth. Even technological advances often are delayed or even suppressed due to profit considerations. And when technological innovations such as “industrial robots” are introduced, they are at the expense of workers who are discharged from their jobs. The colossal development of capitalism in the post-war years is evident enough. The rapid growth of technology, the electronic and informational revolution in the recent decades, the unprecedented expansion of the application of robots and computerised systems in production and distribution point to the this development.

There is a hoary old argument that ‘in any society someone has to do the nasty jobs’. New technology raises the very real possibility of a society in which robots would do all the nasty jobs. Technology could do away with toil and tedium of much work for ever. They could produce a society in which mining accidents only ‘maimed’ robot miners; in which clerical workers turned into the office for only a couple of hours a day and engaged in leisure pursuits while machines did the rest; in which shift-work was unknown except for a very narrow range of occupations like nursing and firefighting; in which the tedium of the assembly line was a nightmare from the past; in which even the handicaps associated with natural afflictions like deafness and blindness were overcome.

The vast array of communications technology that is becoming available could provide a ready means by which those who produce the wealth could democratically adjudge how it should be used, with the information about what different alternatives would mean literally at their finger tips. The final death blow would be dealt to the claim that somehow human beings are  incapable of obtaining the information needed to make rational decisions as to how to use resources to satisfy their material needs.

Nowhere in Marx’s writings is there to be found a detailed account of the new social system which was to follow capitalism. Marx wrote no “Utopia”. The terms “socialism” and “communism” are used more or less interchangeably The first essential feature of socialism is that the of production are taken from private ownership and used for society as, a whole.  The objective  is classless society. The people as a whole own the means of production (factories, mines, etc.). Production is for people’s use, not for  profit. The principle of the operation is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Production is of such a high level that there are abundant commodities for every member of the community and each member helps him or herself according to his or her needs.

Computers, automation and robotics are making it possible to build a new world, a world in which the robots do the “work” and people set about the task of culturally and socially enriching their lives.

Food for thought

According to Toronto Star business writer, David Olive (November 23), we should all be very grateful for the handouts the super rich give us. So many have given large donations to hospitals, concert halls libraries and the like. Besides, the obscene gap between the rich and the rest of us is not the cause of our poverty (relative or absolute). "That abomination owes chiefly to insensitive governments". Gee, and I thought it was because the wealth that society produces is distributed in favour of the rich because they own the means of producing and distributing wealth and therefore we get less precisely because they get more. John Ayers

We have no country - We have a world to win

For a socialist world! To this inspiring task, we summon the workers of all lands – all who are oppressed by capitalism. Only a socialist world can give us peace and plenty. Look how the capitalist world totters on the brink of destruction and possible extinction of the human race.

Yes, prosperity has returned for the bankers, the corporations, the stock exchange speculators. Quantitative Easing has rescued their investments and restored their profits. But the great masses of the people continue to suffer from austerity cuts. The two capitalist parties, Tory (with their coalition partner) and Labour are as rotten and bankrupt as the system they uphold. They pile additional burdens upon the people. For the future they offer only continued misery and insecurity.

Long ago, spokesmen for royalism and the aristocracy argued that common people were unfit to be entrusted with affairs of state. The same sort of elitist prejudice motivates some of those even today. If the workers can produce machinery and precision instruments for the industry and all kinds of commodities for the market, if they can build and maintain powerful trade unions for themselves, why can’t they go beyond all that? What prevents them from organising a mass political party of their own, being won over to socialist ideas, and eventually manning a revolutionary movement which can challenge the existing order and show the way to a new society? Why can’t these workers, who make the necessities and luxuries of life, also make history and remake society and, in the process, remake themselves?

 The Socialist Party of Great Britain do not believe that the people can be summoned into battle on anyone’s command. The class struggle unfolds at its own speed and direction. On the other hand, we are neither fatalists or historical determinists

The  evils of capitalism will disappear only with the destruction of capitalism and the building of socialism. The intensity of the class struggle is greater today and now it is time for the working class to overthrow capitalism. Today it is the ballot box that we use against capitalism. Struggle for socialism. Support the Socialist Party, the only party that keeps the revolutionary red banner unfurled. 

Food for thought

You have to hand it to those capitalists. It only took numerous deadly workplace fires, a building collapse killing over one thousand, conditions of work right out of the nineteenth century, but they have come through with an eighty per cent raise for the Bangladeshi garment workers. They now earn the grand sum of C$72 per month. The capitalists' generosity knows no bounds! John Ayers.

Reformers and betrayers

Capitalism has brought the technology and the organisation of production to a point where the potential to adequately feed, clothe and house the entire world population is reachable. But the creation of abundance would end exploitation and destroy profits, so the capitalists themselves stand as a barrier to a society fit for human beings. Socialist revolution is the only solution. The very elements of socialism, however, are being forgotten by many people in the workers movement to-day. At the moment the idea is being widely spread that by an improvement in the efficiency of capitalism the workers will be able to obtain a continuous improvement in their standard of life. The idea behind this is that the more capitalism produces wealth the better off everyone will become. This is not the case.

 At the present moment the difficulties of capitalism are increasing in every country. One of the sharpest divisions of opinion existing in the Labour movement to-day is that concerning the attitude which ought to be adopted towards this capitalist attack on the wages and conditions of the working class. The reformist leaders of the Labour Party hold that capitalism is not in a “normal” condition. If wage reductions will help in getting capitalism back to “normal,” then they hold that these wage reductions ought to be agreed to by the working class. We see that this policy of calling upon the workers to make sacrifices in order to help capitalism back to normal, runs through the whole policy of the Labour Party.

Socialists contend, on the other hand, that the recessions of the capitalist system is not due to some abnormal accident which has befallen capitalism. The Socialist Party call upon the workers to resist all attempts to lower their standard of life, to unite their forces industrially and to make their resistance as widespread and as united as possible, and to go forward from that to an attack on the capitalist system itself. The more the workers unite their forces and commence to struggle against the capitalist offensive, the more the struggle becomes a political struggle, not between the workers and any group of capitalists, but between the workers and the capitalist state representing the capitalist class as a whole. If the  working-class desire to beat off the capitalist attacks on their present standards and carry out a resolute struggle to achieve their emancipation through the overflow of capitalism, they must fight more and more against any reformist policy of co-operating with capitalism. All workers who are tired of the half-heartedness and compromise of the Left, their co-operation with the capitalist class, should join the Socialist Party and help forward the struggle for complete working class emancipation.

Too many times we have had men who serve the ruling class and who get a good living keeping the working class divided. They start out with good intentions often as not. They really want to do something to serve their fellows. They leave the factory-floor as a common worker, elected to be officers of a union and they change their clothes from overalls and dungarees to a tie, white shirt and suit. They change their habits and their methods. After they have been elevated to official position, as if by magic, they are recognised by those who previously scorned them and held them in contempt. They find that some of the doors that were previously barred against them now open, and they can actually get their feet under the desk of the company chairman.  Our common worker is now a union leader and the employer pats him on the back and tells him that he knew long ago that he was a coming man, that it was a fortunate thing for the workers of the world that he had been born, that in fact they had been long waiting for just such a wise and cautious general secretary. And this has a certain effect upon our new-made leader, and unconsciously, perhaps, he begins to change. Thus goes the transformation. All his dislikes disappear and all feeling of antagonism vanishes. He concludes that they are really most excellent people and, now that he has seen and knows them, he agrees with them that there is no necessary conflict between employer and employee. And he proceeds to betray the class that trusted him and lifted him as high above themselves. Newspapers write editorials about him and praise him as a wise leader; and the CBI and Chambers of Commerce emphasise  that if all union leaders were such as he there would be no objection to labour organising.  The trade unionist who is held in high favour by management is pronounced safe, reliable and honest, and the workers are appealed to to look to him for advice, for guidance and leadership. And the union leader feels himself flattered. And when he is charged with having deserted the class he was supposed to serve, he cries out that the indictment is brought to discredit him but it is those who brings the charge who are most likely to be defamed. By whom? By the capitalist class, of course; and its press and “public” opinion.

A trade union leader who is not attacked  by the capitalist class is not true to the working class. If he be loyal to the working class he will not be on friendly terms with the bosses. He cannot serve both. When he really serves one he serves that one against the other.

The only way in which Trade Union leaders can cooperate with the capitalists is restoring “prosperity” (i.e., increasing production) is to induce the workers to forgo their customs and restrictions, allow the capitalists a freer hand in utilising the labour-power which is available to them in order that an increased product may result. The Trade Union leaders will, of course, point out to the capitalists that this increased production requires to be marketed, and that the employers ought to ensure a stable home market by increasing the workers’ wages as fast, if not faster, than the increased production. They forget the employing class is anxious to introduce those new methods because of a desire for a greater profit, and is not concerned with ensuring a market for his goods through the increase of wages and the reduction of his own profits, and therefore he looks not to a home market made prosperous by the increase in workers’ wages, but to the foreign market where he can rely on a maximum possible profit. Union leaders will, of course, point out to the capitalists that this increased production requires to be marketed, and that the employers ought to ensure a stable home market by increasing the workers’ wages as fast, if not faster, than the increased production. They forget the employing class is anxious to introduce those new methods because of a desire for a greater profit, and is not concerned with ensuring a market for his goods through the increase of wages and the reduction of his own profits, and therefore he looks not to a home market made prosperous by the increase in workers’ wages, but to the foreign market where he can rely on a maximum possible profit.  Union leaders who are leading the workers to believe that a far-reaching improvement in the workers’ wages and conditions of life can be got not by overthrowing capitalism, but by co-operating with the capitalists to make their system more efficient, are simply surrendering to the capitalist class, misleading the workers, and creating conditions which will inevitably make the rich richer and the workers poorer.

Scotland needs more immigrants

Scotland’s ageing population will struggle without the help of younger immigrants from other European countries. The Scotland of the future will need more immigrants. This is going to be true regardless whether an independent country or not. Scotland has a workforce which is ageing. Before long, the need to pay for the ever growing numbers no longer working by the efforts of the shrunken proportion still working will become a big social problem.

One answer would be a greater rate of increase in the native population, though it is hard to see how the long-term trend towards smaller families can be halted. Another answer is that emigration  could be diminished though that again seems unlikely to happen. Another alternative would be to increase participation in economic activity by people such as young mums or OAPS. The white paper on Scotland’s future proposed a scheme of childcare is presented as a social measure but its real rationale was economic.

 These measures, even in combination, would have more than a minor effect on the age-profile of the population and so of the workforce. The only thing that can change that reasonably quickly is immigration.  At the turn of the 21st century the population of Scotland was stagnating in the way it had been for most of the 20th century. The total hovered just above five million, but threatened soon to plunge below that level and to carry on down. Only a few years later and we find not just that the population has kept above five million but also that it continues to rise and within a couple of decades is forecast to reach 5.7 million, the highest number that has ever lived in Scotland in the whole of its history. Immigration is what has made the difference. If we needed to rely only on the natural rate of increase, that is, the excess of native births over native deaths, then the population would still be stagnating, if not falling.

Adapted from here